News
PA Supreme Court Affirms that Evidence of Compliance With Industry and Governmental Standard is Inadmissible in a Products Liability Case
Share to:
In Sullivan v. Werner Company, et al, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that evidence of a product’s compliance with industry and governmental safety standards is inadmissible in an products liability case.
Plaintiff, Michael Sullivan was injured on the job when the platform of the scaffold he was standing on collapsed, resulting in multiple physical injuries. Sullivan brought a defective design claim against defendants, alleging the system of spring-loaded deck pins used to cover the scaffold when the platform was grounded could be triggered unintentionally, causing the platform to collapse.
Defendants introduced an expert report showing that the platform was compliant with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. The trial court granted Sullivan’s motion in limine to preclude defendants from introducing the report at trial. Relying on Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), the trial court determined that defendants were prohibited from introducing evidence of the product’s compliance with industry and governmental safety standards.
On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed. The Court cited Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., 528 A.2d 590, 594 (Pa. 1987), where it held that “evidence of industry standards and a product’s widespread design within an industry go to the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct in making its design choice, and such evidence would have been improperly brought into the case concepts of negligence law.” In Sullivan, the Court applied the same factors under the risk-utility standard established in Lewis. Under the risk-utility standard, “a product is in a defective condition if a ‘reasonable person’ would conclude that the probability and seriousness of harm caused by the product outweigh the burden or costs of taking precautions.” Tincher, 104 A.2d at 389. Accordingly, the Court held that evidence of a product’s compliance with industry and governmental standards is inadmissible in design defect cases to show that a product is not defective under the risk-utility theory.
